What I mean is that the rate the universe is expanding - since the big bang - has been faster than light. Scientists have done the calculations and what they're saying is that because the universe is expanding at a rate that is faster than light, there are galaxies' light source which you nor I will never be able to see conventionally. Perhaps I may be wrong though. Afterall, I got this information from this show and I'm basing my argument on that.

We most likely watched the same show(Which was like a year ago I believe) - discussing the same thing. Another key note that they mentioned is that after the expansion, the universe will revert back into the same point where the big bang had occurred(Then again, that's just a theory).

We most likely watched the same show(Which was like a year ago I believe) - discussing the same thing. Another key note that they mentioned is that after the expansion, the universe will revert back into the same point where the big bang had occurred(Then again, that's just a theory).

According to the hour long video posted above, we live in a flat universe that will continue to expand for ever. What you refer to is the "Big Crunch" that is theorized to happen in a closed universe.

I wonder when a nuclear warhead goes off, does the frame rate of real life drop?

Also unless there were greater amounts of dark energy then it could happen, but scientists have already found that this is not the case. Unfortunately the universe is probably doomed to expand and expand until it suffers a bleeding death as energy is spread so incredibly far and thin that there's nothing substantial in all existence.

Also unless there were greater amounts of dark energy then it could happen, but scientists have already found that this is not the case. Unfortunately the universe is probably doomed to expand and expand until it suffers a bleeding death as energy is spread so incredibly far and thin that there's nothing substantial in all existence.

Well you know how they say that random quantum fluctuations caused the creation of the universe, well then when every star has died and there is nothing left (time has stopped) why wont the random fluctuation happen again and create new big bangs?

I wonder when a nuclear warhead goes off, does the frame rate of real life drop?

I typically just browse the forums but I thought I'd give The Black Wolf a helping hand.

Originally Posted by The Black Wolf

Edit: But if the bi-color gene is recessive in both father and mother, how did it come through to the puppies?

Most living creatures have two sets of chromosomes, and therefore two copies of the same gene, individually known as an allele. This means that it is not just one copy of the gene is used to determine what color the puppies will be but rather one copy from both parents are used.

To obtain the recessive coloration.. bi-coloration, both parents must carry the recessive gene and both parents must transfer that gene to the offspring. Even if the parents don't show the coloration they may still carry the recessive gene which typically can be traced back in their family, like in a grandparent. The reason that the parents do not show the bi-coloration is because the other copy of the gene that they both carry is dominant, meaning that they will show either black and tan or sable coloration over the bi-coloration.

What gets things a lot more complicated is co-dominance and incomplete dominance. Also very common is for single trait to be controlled by multiple genes and it is a combination of these genes that will give the final outcome.

I typically just browse the forums but I thought I'd give The Black Wolf a helping hand.

Most living creatures have two sets of chromosomes, and therefore two copies of the same gene, individually known as an allele. This means that it is not just one copy of the gene is used to determine what color the puppies will be but rather one copy from both parents are used.

To obtain the recessive coloration.. bi-coloration, both parents must carry the recessive gene and both parents must transfer that gene to the offspring. Even if the parents don't show the coloration they may still carry the recessive gene which typically can be traced back in their family, like in a grandparent. The reason that the parents do not show the bi-coloration is because the other copy of the gene that they both carry is dominant, meaning that they will show either black and tan or sable coloration over the bi-coloration.

What gets things a lot more complicated is co-dominance and incomplete dominance. Also very common is for single trait to be controlled by multiple genes and it is a combination of these genes that will give the final outcome.

Basically when somebody has died you get an after image of it it is a bit Catholism mixed with Science.

I'm not sure what nonsense you have been reading but time dilation is a very REAL phenomenon of General Relativty and will never result in any backward time travel... Let alone ghosts. Ghosts are NOT REAL and have absolutely no place in this thread of science.

I apologise for my tone but I really like this thread and I feel it shouldn't be filled with hocus pocus.

Originally Posted by itachi73378

Well you know how they say that random quantum fluctuations caused the creation of the universe, well then when every star has died and there is nothing left (time has stopped) why wont the random fluctuation happen again and create new big bangs?

I do not claim to be qualified to answer this question and there are many theories of multiple universes and baby universes but I would say...

Whatever led to the creation of our universe (be it quantum fluctuations or some other mind-boggling mechanism), it happened somewhere beyond (or outside) our current understanding. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the big bang was not an explosion somewhere in space- It was the simultaneous creation of all matter and spacetime that make our universe. This happened "everywhere" (so to speak) and is inflating and expanding due to dark energy.

What you describe is quite the opposite- A big bang casused by events inside our universe. Obviously, I don't know the definitive answer but your theory of these "new big bangs" would be under different circumstances The parts in bold being what I believe is a justified answer to your question

Originally Posted by Morganator

Actually, what I'm saying is that the universe has been expanding at a rate faster than light since the beginning.

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Consider this...

In my diagram below the G's are galaxies and the -'s is the expanding space-time in between...

Diag A: G-G-G-G-G-G-G

Imagine we are in the 4th G. We can see 6 other galaxies. Note that the "-" is under constant acceleration in this diagram.

After a period of time...

Diag B: G---G---G---G---G---G---G

See how the two galaxies immediately to our left and right are only a little further away but the 1st and 7th are a lot further away, IN THE SAME TIME FRAME. The more distant object we look at, the faster it appears to be going.

The 1st and 7th may eventually appear to be approaching the speed of light from point of view from G even though all galaxies could be stationary in theory.

@ Rapture. Does this help explain why some galaxies are "out of sight" even though the universe isn't old enough yet? Imagine G at the centre of the universe, you can look in any direction for 14 Billion years and see all 6 galaxies. But if you were at the 1st G, you wouldn't be able to see the 7th G for example.

I can't remember without looking it up if the acceleration is increasing, but as it has been called "the cosmological constant", I would assume not.

I don't think it even makes sense to say "the universe has been expanding at a rate faster than light since the beginning". "The universe" is an all-encompassing term and I can tell you now that the space between my face and the laptop screen is not expanding at a rate faster than light.

I hope this helps?

Last edited by the_jim; 07-16-2012 at 14:12.

PSN ID: clear_as_night"XBOX IS ABOUT TO BECOME THE NEXT WATER COOLER" ~NANCY TELLEM, ENTERTAINMENT AND DIGITAL MEDIA PRESIDENT OF MICROSOFT

Multiverse is a load of crap. It's complete surrender in the face of difficult questions.

It's just shrugging your shoulders and saying "Well, we can't really give a good answer here. So, we're just going to try and fix it by appealing to random chance."

It's all the worse in that it is so incredibly abstract and basically outside any reasonable boundary to test. I view multiverse as a cop out.

I understand what you are saying here. Testable theories are the driving force of science and without any evidence you have no obligation to accept these theories.

But the idea of a multiverse is beautifully elegant. From my understanding the multiverse theory completely shoots down any notion of an intelligent designer. An infinite number of universes where everything that can ever happen will happen... Doesn't sound very intelligent.

PSN ID: clear_as_night"XBOX IS ABOUT TO BECOME THE NEXT WATER COOLER" ~NANCY TELLEM, ENTERTAINMENT AND DIGITAL MEDIA PRESIDENT OF MICROSOFT

I do not claim to be qualified to answer this question and there are many theories of multiple universes and baby universes but I would say...

Whatever led to the creation of our universe (be it quantum fluctuations or some other mind-boggling mechanism), it happened somewhere beyond (or outside) our current understanding. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the big bang was not an explosion somewhere in space- It was the simultaneous creation of all matter and spacetime that make our universe. This happened "everywhere" (so to speak) and is inflating and expanding due to dark energy.

What you describe is quite the opposite- A big bang casused by events inside our universe. Obviously, I don't know the definitive answer but your theory of these "new big bangs" would be under different circumstances The parts in bold being what I believe is a justified answer to your question

Oh I know what the big bang was, my question was based on the hour long talk posted above where some doctor said this. I mean if they say that a random fluctuation caused it, then wouldn't that mean the universe can never die as these fluctuations can happen all the time.

Also, I think the multiverse is a load of bull

I wonder when a nuclear warhead goes off, does the frame rate of real life drop?

I understand what you are saying here. Testable theories are the driving force of science and without any evidence you have no obligation to accept these theories.

But the idea of a multiverse is beautifully elegant. From my understanding the multiverse theory completely shoots down any notion of an intelligent designer. An infinite number of universes where everything that can ever happen will happen... Doesn't sound very intelligent.

Except it doesn't. It simply moves the problem a step up, to where it is truly untestable. Where did the megaverse come from? etc etc. All the same questions still apply.

It neatly solves the seemingly designed nature of this universe, if you call appealing to chance 'neat', but it doesn't really progress much farther in tackling the question of origins.

Multiverse is a load of crap. It's complete surrender in the face of difficult questions.

It's just shrugging your shoulders and saying "Well, we can't really give a good answer here. So, we're just going to try and fix it by appealing to random chance."

It's all the worse in that it is so incredibly abstract and basically outside any reasonable boundary to test. I view multiverse as a cop out.

Except it doesn't. It simply moves the problem a step up, to where it is truly untestable. Where did the megaverse come from? etc etc. All the same questions still apply.

It neatly solves the seemingly designed nature of this universe, if you call appealing to chance 'neat', but it doesn't really progress much farther in tackling the question of origins.

According to that video, experiments to check for the existence of other dimensions (which is a part of the multiverse theory), are being done using colliders, by firstly, discovering if gravitons exist, and secondly, checking to see if gravitons can 'disappear' (skip to 34:10 on the video).

A cop out would be to surrender to our current lack of knowledge by saying it is beyond our understanding and we will never know the answer. But, the guys working at places such as the Tevatron and the LHC are not surrendering - the discovery of the Higgs-boson being a case in point.

Multiverse Theory is is fairly similar to String Theory, in that it offers a possible answer and may be 'elegant' in how it does it, but that doesn't mean it's correct. I'm not saying it couldn't be either.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

Multiverse is a load of crap. It's complete surrender in the face of difficult questions.

It's just shrugging your shoulders and saying "Well, we can't really give a good answer here. So, we're just going to try and fix it by appealing to random chance."

It's all the worse in that it is so incredibly abstract and basically outside any reasonable boundary to test. I view multiverse as a cop out.

It's not. So far it's really just a postulation with a bit of pseudo logic backing it up. It's not an accepted scientific answer running as, "Well, we don't know, so there must lots of universes."

String theory is infinitely more preferable than multiverse in my eyes.

@Val,

There are intrinsic limitations to the kinds of 'answers' we can gleam from the multiverse scenario. This is why quite a few scientists are so appalled by it (string\M theorists in particular) that they're throwing up their arms in annoyance over the whole thing.

Some scientists have even gone so far as to say that "this line of reasoning is dangerous and I won't even waste time considering it."

String theory is infinitely more preferable than multiverse in my eyes.

@Val,

There are intrinsic limitations to the kinds of 'answers' we can gleam from the multiverse scenario. This is why quite a few scientists are so appalled by it (string\M theorists in particular) that they're throwing up their arms in annoyance over the whole thing.

Some scientists have even gone so far as to say that "this line of reasoning is dangerous and I won't even waste time considering it."

You seem to have blurred distinction between the theory and the reality. It doesn't matter what you want to believe... The universe will tell us the answers. We can only go with what is testable... Until then it's just psuedoscience. I personally fear there will always be an unreachable level of existence. Like that woman who said the universe sits on a tortoise that sits on a tortoise that sits on a tortoise... all the way down. There will always be a question of "what made the multiverse?" or "what made the strings?" and in turn, what made that?

We may have to accept these questions are very probably beyond science. You only need to go one layer up and it doesn't matter... It could be a deity, A universe making factory or we could all be in the matrix. If we can't test it with science, there's not much else we can do.

Originally Posted by Valefor

A cop out would be to surrender to our current lack of knowledge by saying it is beyond our understanding and we will never know the answer. But, the guys working at places such as the Tevatron and the LHC are not surrendering - the discovery of the Higgs-boson being a case in point.

We will get closer to the answers we seek.

This. The human race is working it's butt off to understand the universe. We aren't giving up Vulg, don't worry

Originally Posted by itachi73378

Oh I know what the big bang was, my question was based on the hour long talk posted above where some doctor said this. I mean if they say that a random fluctuation caused it, then wouldn't that mean the universe can never die as these fluctuations can happen all the time.

Maybe I misunderstood your question then. Can you direct me to the time in the video? I don't have time to watch it all. Of course there is every reason to believe that the big bang is one of many, possibly endless "big bounces" or at the creation of other universes. But it sounds like your question postulates that these fluctuations could spawn a big bang in an already- established universe?

Someone above mentioned that extra dimensions are related to other universes. Can anybody explain this to me? If the known 4 aren't related, why are the others? And more importantly... If we are able to detect other universes, information would have to pass between the two... violating the conservation of energy :S

Last edited by the_jim; 07-17-2012 at 10:57.

PSN ID: clear_as_night"XBOX IS ABOUT TO BECOME THE NEXT WATER COOLER" ~NANCY TELLEM, ENTERTAINMENT AND DIGITAL MEDIA PRESIDENT OF MICROSOFT

You seem to have blurred distinction between the theory and the reality.

How? This is all about what is actually real vs. what is 'theoretically possible' by throwing around numbers. I'm accusing hardline multiverse proponents of blurring the lines between reality and theory. It is literally so far removed from the scientific theory that its something you'd read out of a Lovecraft or W40K novel. Sure, we can test particular tidbits of the theory here and there.. But ultimately I think it will all come for naught. I see far more promise in String/M Theory.

It doesn't matter what you want to believe... The universe will tell us the answers.

Uh, maybe? There may come a time when we have to accept that there are simply limitations. How and when, we cannot say. But it's in the cards.

I understand the importance of truth. What I don't understand are half assed arguments that attempt to extricate their adherents from the quagmire of implications that a finite universe with a big "?" before 1 planck's length which face them. Scientists have turned to pseudoscience in order to try and make an argument as to where this universe came from. Never mind that all the same questions apply to the megaverse in this scenario which we can genuinely never test, or otherwise probe. Ultimately, it is a dead end. One way or another.

Could it possibly be true? Sure. But let's pursue theories that are far more tangible and realistic before we all saddle up to appeal to the miracle of random chance over real answers.

We can only go with what is testable... Until then it's just psuedoscience.

Yea, I've been saying this the whole time.

I personally fear there will always be an unreachable level of existence. Like that woman who said the universe sits on a tortoise that sits on a tortoise that sits on a tortoise... all the way down. There will always be a question of "what made the multiverse?" or "what made the strings?" and in turn, what made that?

Ok, at this point I'm not sure which side of the position you're on. As it stand the tower of turtles is deafening in its existence- it's the 900lb gorilla nobody wants to really address, because it unravels all of the 'empiricism' these rationalists have clothed themselves in. Ultimately there are leaps of faith at the kernel of every position- and not small ones. Big ones.

You're sounding like me now.

We may have to accept these questions are very probably beyond science. You only need to go one layer up and it doesn't matter... It could be a deity, A universe making factory or we could all be in the matrix. If we can't test it with science, there's not much else we can do.

You started off at A and you ended with Vulgotha lol.

You and I don't seem far apart on this issue at all man.

@Val

A cop out would be to surrender to our current lack of knowledge by saying it is beyond our understanding and we will never know the answer. But, the guys working at places such as the Tevatron and the LHC are not surrendering - the discovery of the Higgs-boson being a case in point.

We will get closer to the answers we seek.

Honestly I do see it as a surrender of sorts. Instead of facing the possible reality that there is a 'wall' they'd rather conjure up some magical theories using tenuous logic at best in order to package everything in a neat bow.

I also view simply appealing to random chance as unsatisfactory. You have to go deeper than that, and we should demand no less.

I'm more concerned with integrity and actual truth than anything else.

The Higgs Boson is actually a terrible example, its a theorized particle that potentially exists all around us. Interacts with us.

The multiverse and megaverse, by contrast, is this ethereal concept that is maybe true but it literally lies outside the realm of our universe and contains a sea of other verses... With no real unifying laws as we know it holding it all together. Or if so, we could never know.

You mine as well try to scientifically prove the existence of God. It's no less far fetched or scientifically implausible.

How? This is all about what is actually real vs. what is 'theoretically possible' by throwing around numbers. I'm accusing hardline multiverse proponents of blurring the lines between reality and theory. It is literally so far removed from the scientific theory that its something you'd read out of a Lovecraft or W40K novel. Sure, we can test particular tidbits of the theory here and there.. But ultimately I think it will all come for naught. I see far more promise in String/M Theory.

But youíre throwing your prejudices around here. You canít dismiss the notion of the multiverse just because you donít like it. In my opinion, you sound concerned that the multiverse wonít give you the answers you want? But that might just be the way it is.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

Scientists have turned to pseudoscience in order to try and make an argument as to where this universe came from. Never mind that all the same questions apply to the megaverse in this scenario which we can genuinely never test, or otherwise probe. Ultimately, it is a dead end. One way or another.

A good scientist would be open-minded about this. Without evidence, their argument counts for nothing.Remember the multiverse is not an accepted theory! The trouble is that the universe we study operates through the laws of nature. Every experiment repeatable... Behaving in the same way every time. But when you go back to one Planck length after the big bang... even reverse engineering the effects of inflation, the separation of the weak and electromagnetic forces... The laws break down and the universe is a very different place. Iím not 100% sure on how far back the LHC can create these conditions but they are searching for the answers.

Hopefully one day we can wind back the clock enough to solve these mysteries. The information is just so twisted and distorted that making sense of it would be the greatest human achievement.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

Could it possibly be true? Sure. But let's pursue theories that are far more tangible and realistic before we all saddle up to appeal to the miracle of random chance over real answers.

You sound like Einstein here Take that however you want
The successfulness of Quantum Mechanics demonstrates that the universe is indeed subject to random chance. Its presence could be in more locations than we know.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

You're sounding like me now.
You started off at A and you ended with Vulgotha lol.
You and I don't seem far apart on this issue at all man.

We obviously both have a thirst for truth and knowledge and it ultimately draws us down the same path. A truly wonderful trait of humankind that shows we can rise above our differences for a common goal. The ISS and the LHC are proof of this

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

The Higgs Boson is actually a terrible example, its a theorized particle that potentially exists all around us. Interacts with us. .

But the [Higgs?] Boson was discovered. It goes to show without a shadow of a doubt that we really are understanding how the universe works. You might have to explain what you mean here.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

You mine as well try to scientifically prove the existence of God. It's no less far fetched or scientifically implausible.

This statement is exactly true and mirrors part of my previous post. This is wikipediaís definition of science:

Basically, if you canít test it, itís not science. If Gods presence is in an untestable environment, he could never be proved or disproved... But consequently would also never have any direct influence over our lives, which seems to be the case. Note that the use of the word ďGodĒ in the previous sentence could be replaced by any unscientific mechanism.

PSN ID: clear_as_night"XBOX IS ABOUT TO BECOME THE NEXT WATER COOLER" ~NANCY TELLEM, ENTERTAINMENT AND DIGITAL MEDIA PRESIDENT OF MICROSOFT

Honestly I do see it as a surrender of sorts. Instead of facing the possible reality that there is a 'wall' they'd rather conjure up some magical theories using tenuous logic at best in order to package everything in a neat bow.

I also view simply appealing to random chance as unsatisfactory. You have to go deeper than that, and we should demand no less.

I'm more concerned with integrity and actual truth than anything else.

The Higgs Boson is actually a terrible example, its a theorized particle that potentially exists all around us. Interacts with us.

The multiverse and megaverse, by contrast, is this ethereal concept that is maybe true but it literally lies outside the realm of our universe and contains a sea of other verses... With no real unifying laws as we know it holding it all together. Or if so, we could never know.

You mine as well try to scientifically prove the existence of God. It's no less far fetched or scientifically implausible.

I feel like this is starting to go over old ground, as we have had similar discussions before.

I'll just say that complexity comes through stages, it does not simply appear (according to what we have observed through evolution). So, the existence of a deity, which would have to be the most complex being in existence, is far far far less likely than the idea of random particles popping into and out of existence. Especially since experiments seem to indicate the latter is true.

The multiverse theory may not be correct. It is just one theory amongst many. But, experiments are being done to test elements of the theory - as I mentioned in my previous post - so your statement 'we could never know' is incorrect. I'm not fond of saying we could never know - it has happened many times in the past, and has usually been shown to be false when knowledge and technology advanced enough to make the statement redundant.

But you’re throwing your prejudices around here. You can’t dismiss the notion of the multiverse just because you don’t like it. In my opinion, you sound concerned that the multiverse won’t give you the answers you want? But that might just be the way it is.

A good scientist would be open-minded about this. Without evidence, their argument counts for nothing.Remember the multiverse is not an accepted theory! The trouble is that the universe we study operates through the laws of nature. Every experiment repeatable... Behaving in the same way every time. But when you go back to one Planck length after the big bang... even reverse engineering the effects of inflation, the separation of the weak and electromagnetic forces... The laws break down and the universe is a very different place. I’m not 100% sure on how far back the LHC can create these conditions but they are searching for the answers.

Hopefully one day we can wind back the clock enough to solve these mysteries. The information is just so twisted and distorted that making sense of it would be the greatest human achievement.

You sound like Einstein here Take that however you want
The successfulness of Quantum Mechanics demonstrates that the universe is indeed subject to random chance. Its presence could be in more locations than we know.

We obviously both have a thirst for truth and knowledge and it ultimately draws us down the same path. A truly wonderful trait of humankind that shows we can rise above our differences for a common goal. The ISS and the LHC are proof of this

But the [Higgs?] Boson was discovered. It goes to show without a shadow of a doubt that we really are understanding how the universe works. You might have to explain what you mean here.

This statement is exactly true and mirrors part of my previous post. This is wikipedia’s definition of science:

Basically, if you can’t test it, it’s not science. If Gods presence is in an untestable environment, he could never be proved or disproved... But consequently would also never have any direct influence over our lives, which seems to be the case. Note that the use of the word “God” in the previous sentence could be replaced by any unscientific mechanism.

I don't like the multiverse because I'm concerned it won't provide any actually real answers whatsoever. We may just hop into this rabbit trail of speculation and go farther from what the actual truth may be (providing it is even knowable).

You keep saying that I'm somehow upset and dislike the theory because it could give answers that I personally don't like- except that's false. I was indifferent to multiverse until I did some reading into it and saw what skeptics were saying. To me, it's just poor science.

You're missing my point with random chance, and yes I get your Einstein quote concerning "God not playing with dice" and his dislike for quantum mechanics. But that isn't actually what I'm talking about here, although I can understand why you'd think that is the case.

What I'm saying is, simply appealing to chance to explain away deep underlying causes for particularly baffling facets of this universe is just not good enough. I mean the relationship between mathematics and this universe is also one that deserves more scrutiny. It just so happens that the very "code" of creation is decipherable and can be decoded? Science is entering the realm of philosophy now, it can't simply wave its hands and say "Well it works and frankly who cares?" it's all about the answers.

I've done it before and I'll do it again lol:

C. The Multiverse

A minority of scientists, but a growing one, now support the multiverse theory in one version or another. Modern cosmological models point strongly to the existence of a multiplicity of cosmic domains (for example, bubble universese, pocket universes, variegated cosmic regions) as a natural and generic feature in which the big bang that gave birth to our universe is but one of many (probably an infinite number of) bangs generating a multiplicity of "universes." In addition, many theories that seek to unify physics predict some sort of variability in at least some of the constants of nature - parameters that enter into the Standard Model of particle physics - and in some of these theories there is variation in the form of the laws of low energy physics too, opening the way for them to vary from one cosmic domain to another as the universes cool from their melting pot origins. The favored unification model, or models, known as string/M theory, seem to entail a "landscape" of vastly many possible low energy universes, with nothing obvious to single out a special one.The advantage of the multiverse theory is that it provides a natural and easy explanation of why the universe is so uncannily finetuned for life: observers arise only in those universes where, like Goldilocks porridge, things are by accident "just right." Bio hostile universes overwhelmingly proliferate, but they are by definition sterile, so they go unseen. The disadvantage of the multiverse theory is that it invokes an overabundance of entities, most of which could never be observed, even in principle. This profligacy strikes many people as an extravagant way to explain bio-friendliness. The theory is also very hard to test. Observers are treated simply as selection agents, so the mysterious comprehensibility of the universe (to the human mind at least) is left unexplained. The multiverse does not provide a complete account of existence because it still requires a lot of unexplained and very "convenient" physics to make work. For example, there has to be a universe-generating mechanism, quantum mechanics has to describe everything, and the unified laws of some sort (such as those that arise from string/M theory) have to be simply accepted as "given". So the multiverse, at least in this "mild" form, lacks the power of B1 (unique universe), although it is no worse than B2. Some sort of ingenious selection still has to be made, not of a universe but of a multiverse. The problem of existence has therefore not gone away, but only been shifted up a level.The last criticism is avoided by the extreme multiverse model proposed by Max Tegmark in which all possible worlds of any description really exist, not just those flowing from a specified mathematical model such as string\M theory and inflation. The advantage of extreme multiverse is that it explains everything because it contains everything. This has the virtue of simplicity and "naturalness," but the huge disadvantage of appearing vacuous. A theory that can explain anything at all really explains nothing. However, a multiverse hat contains less than everything implies a rule that separates what exists from what is possible but does not exist. The rule remains unexplained. Another disadvantage of all multiverse theories is that they seem to lead to the prediction of fake universes that (at least on a simple counting basis) outnumber the real ones, leading to the bizarre conclusion that the observed universe is probably fake, and so its physics cannot be taken seriously anyway. Multiverse proponents get sniped at from both sides. Religious adherents regard the theory as a frantic attempt to dodge any sort of god: "the last resort for the desperate atheist," in the words of the philosopher Neil Manson. String/M theory purists, on the other hand, see it as a weak-kneed abdication of professional responsibility in the face of mathematical difficulties.

and of course:

A. The Absurd Universe

This is probably the majority position among scientists. According to this point of view, the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happen to permit life. It could have been otherwise, but what we see is what we get. Had it been different, we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all - at least none that would make sense to us. There is no God, no designer, no teleological principle, no destiny. Life in general, and human beings in particular, are an irrelevant embellishment in a vast and meaningless cosmos, the existence of which is an unfathomable mystery. The advantage of this position is that it is easy to hold - easy to the point of being a cop-out. If there is no deeper meaning or scheme, there is no point in searching for one. In particular, there is no point in seeking links between life, mind, and cosmos: according to this view, there IS no connection, apart from the trivial one that life has emerged from the cosmos and mind has emerged from life, purely by accident. The disadvantage of the absurd universe view is that science cannot be expected to uncover new and deeper layers of order or further connections between natural phenomena. If there is no coherent scheme of things, then the success of science can be pursued only with a completely unjustified faith that the methods used hitherto will continue to uncover reasonlessly existing order beneath the surface appearance of things. The fact that life exists, seemingly against vast odds, is attributed to an extraordinary accident. And appealing to luck, like appealing to miracles, is not a very satisfactory explanation. That life has evolved mind has to be accepted as another stupendous accident of history. The fact that some minds are capable of understanding the universe is likewise either dismissed as yet another fluke, or tied to vague notions that brains have evolved to recognize patterns, and that - again for no reason - the deep patterns of physics and cosmology resemble the patterns of the everyday world on our planet (which in fact they mostly don't).--

I'm just dubious about the multiverse's veracity. Like many, many others.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.